|
Baronash posted:The text that literally flies across the screen at the beginning of ep4 goes against your personal storyline. Stop trying to be quippy and actually post about stuff, OP How does the opening crawl contradict my interpretation of the opening scene of ANH? I'm genuinely interested to know. Use the dialogue and acting choices if you wouldn't mind Also you're saying you would definitely categorize what happened at the end of R1 as a military victory? MonsieurChoc posted:Not enough love for the Admiral Not-Ackbar in this thread. Dude didn't give up when everyone else was, launched an attack on Scarrif before he even knew the Rogue One team was down there and then came up with the domino maneuver at the last second to get the plans. He was a great rebel who should be remembered. The hammerhead ramming was dope as hell
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Well, it's not exactly unprecedented for people to react poorly when a Star Wars Prequel depicts something occurring differently than they inferred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Leia has clearly been working with the Rebellion for a while, so it makes sense for them to have a history together. She's just always had juuuust enough plausible deniability to get away with it. At some point she clearly got caught transporting a bunch of rebels. Of course, it was a "mercy mission" and she "had no idea that some of the refugees were rebels". If Vader was involved, she might have even been smuggling a Jedi. Bail Organa and the Rebellion have been playing a dangerous game for a while and now that they've been caught red handed it is time to pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:How does the opening crawl contradict my interpretation of the opening scene of ANH? I'm genuinely interested to know. Use the dialogue and acting choices if you wouldn't mind Baronash posted:The rebels, "striking from a hidden base, have have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire" and now "Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans." Princess Leia has been racing home with the plans. How does that in any way leave open the possibility of a long, drawn out, cat-and-mouse chase across the galaxy? If anything, it suggests that Leia has had some previous run-ins with Imperials prior to the events of the movie, which the film doesn't change in any way. Waffles Inc. posted:Also you're saying you would definitely categorize what happened at the end of R1 as a military victory?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Princess Leia has been racing home with the plans. How does that in any way leave open the possibility of a long, drawn out, cat-and-mouse chase across the galaxy? If anything, it suggests that Leia has had some previous run-ins with Imperials prior to the events of the movie, which the film doesn't change in any way. ...They're not anywhere even remotely close to Alderaan though. They've above Tatooine? Also so you would say it was indeed a military victory for the Rebels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Of course it was a victory -- they achieved their goal. It was also very expensive and public. The real kick off to a new hot phase of the counterrevolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:ImpAtom covered a few of those posts in this thread, but then there's this too At which point you've basically walked into the age-old balance of power and influence film makers (i.e. the creative side) and film producers share. Sure, I bet a lot of th emovie was commissioned in part by producers with an eye on profit margins, but that's every big movie, even back in the days of black-and-white pictures. I'm absolutely certain that Vader was suggested by a boardroom exec, but whether that was the reason or not, the big question is: does it hurt the film? See, Leia showing up isn't the highest note to end on, but the movie has leading up to it some really amazing scenes and visuals, particularly Jyn and Inigo Montoya's, so it felt like it was shoehorned, but the film had put the work in to earn it. These movies are supposed to make money--the writers played those scenes out because they wanted to try to appeal to the audience and encourage sales of the merchandise, just like all Star Wars movies. It doesn't mean those scenes aren't cool as hell or Vader having the only lightsaber in the movie was a wonderful demonstration of restraint after the loving Prequels and their Lightsaber fetish. I feel you are holding R1 to a kind of unfair and unrealistic standard, because every movie relies on focus groups and feedback and they've always had meddling executives and it is the combination of all these factors that somehow manages to produce the great films of our history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:
Are we playing Take Your Pick or something? Yes, it's a military victory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:...They're not anywhere even remotely close to Alderaan though. They've above Tatooine? It was definitely a strategic win, they now have a legitimate chance of killing the thing. Tactically, it's debatable but they definitely didn't lose. Also, why is it surprising she's not anywhere near alderaan? If they're trying to keep their compliance in the rebellion a secret, fleeing home right away is not a smart idea, especially if there exists some way of tracking where a ship has traveled. This is also the reason they didn't immediately run to Yavin
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Well it's a bit personal when you're being a prick to another poster. I've already discussed my opinion of Rogue One. The best Star Wars film since the OT. Everything in the film was enjoyable. Saw was underused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
It could've used more forest Whitaker but the same could be said of almost all movies tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
You know what the best thing about Rogue One is? How dark and gritty it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:it's not an effective "how did we get here" when it muddies the original destination He essentially has them red handed compared to say, 15 or so years of Alderaan quietly supporting rebel cells he has the Tantive IV escaping a battle where plans to the Empire's secret weapon were stolen. It's not like say, Star Wars Rebels where Leia justified showing up in the same location as a known Rebel cell by calling it a humanitarian mission. RBA Starblade posted:In Episode 9 Snoke should stand up and punt a rebel for a field goal. Don't gently caress with this Supreme Leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Leia's ship is filled with dudes in Rebel uniforms to begin with!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I can keep going back in pages if you want but we've been having this conversation since Thursday and it keeps coming up. One of the most common arguments is that it isn't 'safe' like other Star Wars films. I explained why and didn't just say least safe in a vacuum. It makes choices that go against the raw marketing focus that comprise a lot of Disney's latest output and do things like frame, in an outward sense, the characters around controversial things like Middle Easterners and pre-emptive execution that could also lower returns and reception. Even people dying isn't just about the "dark and gritty" strawman people have created - it's a specific contrast to Disney refusing to kill off anyone but old mentors in their movies, from Star Wars, to Marvel that makes it a riskier proposition than even the old SW movies. That's also specifically why RISKIER is used as opposed to GRITTIER. It's a different concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Darko posted:I explained why and didn't just say least safe in a vacuum. It makes choices that go against the raw marketing focus that comprise a lot of Disney's latest output and do things like frame, in an outward sense, the characters around controversial things like Middle Easterners and pre-emptive execution that could also lower returns and reception. I guess I just can't agree that a film that spends like 1/3rd its running time showing toys fighting one another is going against raw marketing focus. It's like telling me Gundam isn't about toy marketing because it has a plot about how all adults are terrible and governments are corrupt. If anything I'd say Rogue One is even more about that. A bulk of things are solved by action figures instead of characters. This isn't untrue of a lot of Star Wars films mind you so I don't think it's a flaw, I just also don't think it represents risk. Edit: I didn't dislike Rogue One I should note. I just found the characters thin and the fanservice self-indulgent. I'm mostly just befuddled by the "it's the best film ever! All war movies are like this!" stuff, with people insisting that I didn't remember the characters from Platoon/Seven Samurai/ect for some reason. I might also think the risks were more meaningful if they actually felt like they stuck with them, but the Rebels overthrow their dark nature and engage in a heroic straightforward fight with little to no moral ambiguity. Or at least not more than in the previous films. It's hard to see a 'darker' Rebellion when the climax involves none of it. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
To continue, you're making a contrast with things like this:ImpAtom posted:Star Wars films are often violent and brutal. The Empire Strikes Back ended with the cast in an absolutely horrible state. The ending of ANH was an absolute bloodbath with like... 4 people entirely escaping from the Death Star. RotJ is largely a happy ending but then TFA makes sure you know that happy ending didn't stick and ends with one of its protagonists in a coma. RotS ends with the protagonists dueling to the death, everyone getting their poo poo wrecked and the dawn of a new fascist empire. And if you're saying "Well, that doesn't count, it had to happen!" then that applies just as readily to Rogue One. ...where you are ignoring the language of visually SHOWING something as opposed to inferring it. I'll give you an example, when I saw Jedi at the theater, kids were crying when the Ewok was killed in the final battle. A TON of people had died on screen, to that point in Star Wars, but in this case, it was a "cuddly" protagonist character that died, on screen, and the death was allowed to linger on screen and have results on another character who reacted to it. We weren't sad as kids because someone died, but because that death was presented as mattering, which was actually a surprise then. And also John Williams' score there. People don't care when Porkins, who got shown for two seconds 5 minutes ago gets shot and says YYYEEEEEAAARGHHH. It's basically a random redshirt dying; there's no real emotional connection, especially if there's no real reaction to it. People do care when people they have grown attached to die, or when an onscreen death causes an actual reaction in another character. Similarly, a guy shooting a bounty hunter who is going after him and is about to kill him makes that guy "cool." Thus the Han shot first outrage. A guy shooting a random informant because of greater good actually is more likely to have people start to feel negatively about that character, which is much more of a "risk" to do with a protagonist in their first appearance. So going by what you say above, the ending of ANH was random redshirts dying (especially since Biggs was never established) and the brutality was Luke's aunt and uncle dying at the beginning and Leia being tortured. The mentor died, but he did so by poofing off into nothing. ESB was dark because it was unheard of at the time for the protagonists to be left in such a negative state. Jedi was the exact opposite. TPM had a few redshirts, not even a named Gungan that anyone cared about (unlike the Ewoks), and the old mentor character again. It did have Anakin slaughtering a group of aliens, though (which was established after the fact as being horrible as opposed to before). And ROTS was the "darkest" in tone, but also gave most people exactly what was already expected at the end, with the younglings being the standout. TFA just had the old mentor die again. So when it comes to questionable protagonists, we have Anakin slaughtering younglings. When we have family dying on screen, we have Beru and Owen. When we have deaths from people that those on screen care about, we have an Ewok. With deaths of named protagonists we followed for more than a second, Samuel L. Jackson. Mentors, we have Obi Wan disappearing and Han. In TFA we have all of those things combined in one narrative. And shown on screen, and reacted to, on screen and not just being background or offhand. That's why people are saying that it's "more." Not just because it's gritty, but because it actually attempts to (it's up to the viewer as to whether it succeeds or not) put some weight on these things instead of it just happening in the background, like with many of the things in the other one, and the recent Marvel output. edit: as another comparison, when Beru and Owen died Luke looked down for one second, looked up, and then said I want to go be a Jedi and didn't care anymore. When the parental character died in this, she grieved with the death on screen, and then took it out on another character in the ship as further reaction in the next scene. There's a different level of presentation. Darko fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Edit: I didn't dislike Rogue One I should note. I just found the characters thin and the fanservice self-indulgent. I'm mostly just befuddled by the "it's the best film ever! All war movies are like this!" stuff, with people insisting that I didn't remember the characters from Platoon/Seven Samurai/ect for some reason. This is in response to the broad "I can't remember their names" complaint. I was on Internet forums in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan came out and nobody knew their names the weekend the movie was released either, etc. It's not a complaint in similar movies; it's that people are comparing a broader cast of protagonists that are followed with movies where you have 3 or 4 and a couple of mascots that don't talk, and are strictly keeping the focus small, on them only.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
The movie sort of half-heartedly ties the Rebellion to Islamic terror, and the Empire is as explicity American as it's ever been, that's kinda not safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
General Dog posted:The movie sort of half-heartedly ties the Rebellion to Islamic terror, that's kinda not safe. Whatever. Would have been better if the whole scene was redone on a corascant like super city and the rebels were dressed up as salarymen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Remembering the names of the characters is mostly meaningless, all it indicates is that the character's name was mentioned a lot in the screenplay. The more important thing is what qualities can you remember about the character, what kind of person did they show themselves to be over the course of the movie? Good scripts tell you a lot about characters in a way that feels natural and without wasting too much screentime(assuming the entire film isn't just a character piece).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Whatever. Would have been better if the whole scene was redone on a corascant like super city and the rebels were dressed up as salarymen? No I think it's cool as is, I'm just responding to the people who are saying it's one of the safest Star Wars movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I mean the Rebellion was always based on the Viet Cong, so basing them off of modern day resistance fighters isn't that bold or risky
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
When are we going to get a decent Goatse photoshop for the Scarif planetary shield gate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Serf posted:I mean the Rebellion was always based on the Viet Cong, so basing them off of modern day resistance fighters isn't that bold or risky True, but if we're talking 2016 having them blowing up Are Troops in space-Mecca is at least a bit more interesting than just fighting literal Space Nazi strawmen in TFA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Darko posted:This is in response to the broad "I can't remember their names" complaint. I was on Internet forums in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan came out and nobody knew their names the weekend the movie was released either, etc. It's not a complaint in similar movies; it's that people are comparing a broader cast of protagonists that are followed with movies where you have 3 or 4 and a couple of mascots that don't talk, and are strictly keeping the focus small, on them only. I guess I'm not really getting the "well, it has such a larger cast to deal with" thing. The 'main crew' in ANH is Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, C3-P0, R2-D2 and Obi-Wan. The 'main crew' in Rogue One is Jyn, Cassian, K2, Bodhi, Chirrut and Baze. ANH by no means has the most Deep And Meaningful Characters Ever but they are largely strongly defined and characterized. Even the ones that don't actually talk are strongly characterized. In comparison the Rogue One cast feels thin. The monks in particular feel super tacked on. There's no scene as strong as even Han and Obi-Wan arguing over the Force because basically the only characters that really talk to one another are Jyn and Cassian. General Dog posted:True, but if we're talking 2016 having them blowing up Are Troops in space-Mecca is at least a bit more interesting than just fighting literal Space Nazi strawmen in TFA. I took the First Order to be making fun of the alt-right neo-nazi wannabe bullshit which is pretty relevant I'd say. (Said Neo-Nazis are also crying about Rogue One being too multicultural and an attack on Trump though so it isn't like it really matters if we're talking new Empire or old-flavor.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Serf posted:I mean the Rebellion was always based on the Viet Cong, so basing them off of modern day resistance fighters isn't that bold or risky No, but I get why Lucas liked it: most people miss the Viet Cong connection. Despite the Ewoks fighting the Empire in a forest with traps and ingenuity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:No, but I get why Lucas liked it: most people miss the Viet Cong connection. Despite the Ewoks fighting the Empire in a forest with traps and ingenuity. I would say the ewoks hearken back to a different source entirely, but I get your point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I feel kinda bad for thinking the empire is so cool and they should win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:The only thing I care about in regards to Snoke is if he's actually a giant Zentradi-sized dude or not, because if he is it could lead to a unique battle scene for these new movies that the previous ones didn't quite do. Get ready for the Resistance's new V(alkyrie)-Wing with a Battloid mode. Complete with a fuckoff huge lightsaber. Or maybe they'll go Voltron style with all the -Wings and the Falcon forming the head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:Get ready for the Resistance's new V(alkyrie)-Wing with a Battloid mode. Complete with a fuckoff huge lightsaber. Apparently there was a V Wing in the Clone Wars era. And a U wing in Rogue One. I wonder what letters of the alphabet haven't had a Wing yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Apparently there was a V Wing in the Clone Wars era. And a U wing in Rogue One. I wonder what letters of the alphabet haven't had a Wing yet. They need a Prince Wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
It feels like most of the criticism of the film is just being handwaved away by the statement, "It's a war movie, actually."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Or a G(undam)-Wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Cool movie. I liked seeing X-wings blow poo poo up and and Vader slice dudes up.
Frankston fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel like Star Wars can be criticized to death. And it extends the fun we can siphon from the films. But its also ok to just ignore all these reasons to hate star wars. the critic is worth nothing. lucas is a beautiful god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
What is a war movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Honestly, it sounds like most of the criticisms are focused around the fact that this movie was not a character-driven piece. And, if that's what you wanted or would have preferred, that's okay -- but don't argue from the position that every story has to be character-driven. It can simply be a matter of personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly, it sounds like most of the criticisms are focused around the fact that this movie was not a character-driven piece. And, if that's what you wanted or would have preferred, that's okay -- but don't argue from the position that every story has to be character-driven. It can simply be a matter of personal preference. There's a lot of people that are delivering their personal manifestos on what makes a movie good and expecting other people to just accept that it applies broadly to every movie at all times. There's no textbook that explains how to write good characters, this is something writers have puzzled over since the invention of the story itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly, it sounds like most of the criticisms are focused around the fact that this movie was not a character-driven piece. And, if that's what you wanted or would have preferred, that's okay -- but don't argue from the position that every story has to be character-driven. It can simply be a matter of personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:53
|
|